Multi-modal sleep intervention for community-dwelling people living with dementia and primary caregiver dyads with sleep disturbance: protocol of a single-arm feasibility trial.

Background: Disturbed sleep is common among people living with dementia and their informal caregivers, and is associated with negative health outcomes. Dyadic, multi-modal interventions targeting caregiver and care-recipient sleep have been recommended yet remain limited. This protocol details the development of a single-arm feasibility trial of a multi-modal, therapist-led, six-week intervention targeting sleep disturbance in dyads of people living with dementia and their primary caregiver. Methods: We aim to recruit 24 co-residing, community-dwelling dyads of people living with dementia and their primary informal caregiver (n = 48) with sleep concerns (Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index ≥5 for caregivers, and caregiver-endorsed sleep concerns for the person living with dementia). People who live in residential care settings, are employed in night shift work, or are diagnosed with current, severe mental health conditions or narcolepsy, will be excluded. Participants will wear an actigraph and complete sleep diaries for two weeks prior, and during the last two weeks, of active intervention. The intervention is therapist-led and includes a mix of weekly small group video sessions and personalised, dyadic sessions (up to 90 min each) over six weeks. Sessions are supported by a 37-page workbook offering strategies and spaces for reflections/notes. Primary feasibility outcomes are caregiver: session attendance, attrition, and self-reported project satisfaction. Secondary outcomes include dyadic self-reported and objectively-assessed sleep, depression and anxiety symptoms, quality of life, and social support. Self-report outcomes will be assessed at pre- and post-intervention. Discussion: If feasible, this intervention could be tested in a larger randomised controlled trial to investigate its efficacy, and, upon further testing, may potentially represent a non-pharmacological approach to reduce sleep disturbance among people living with dementia and their caregivers. ANZCTR Trial registration: ACTRN12622000144718: https://www.anzctr.org.au/Trial/Registration/TrialReview.aspx?id=382960&showOriginal=true&isReview=true.

A single-blind, parallel-group randomised trial of a Technology-assisted and remotely delivered Cognitive Behavioural Therapy intervention (Tech-CBT) versus usual care to reduce anxiety in people with mild cognitive impairment and dementia: study protocol for a randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: Anxiety is commonly experienced by people living with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and dementia. Whilst there is strong evidence for late-life anxiety treatment using cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) and delivery via telehealth, there is little evidence for the remote delivery of psychological treatment for anxiety in people living with MCI and dementia. This paper reports the protocol for the Tech-CBT study which aims to investigate the efficacy, cost-effectiveness, usability and acceptability of a technology-assisted and remotely delivered CBT intervention to enhance delivery of anxiety treatment for people living with MCI and dementia of any aetiology. METHODS: A hybrid II single-blind, parallel-group randomised trial of a Tech-CBT intervention (n = 35) versus usual care (n = 35), with in-built mixed methods process and economic evaluations to inform future scale-up and implementation into clinical practice. The intervention (i) consists of six weekly sessions delivered by postgraduate psychology trainees via telehealth video-conferencing, (ii) incorporates voice assistant app technology for home-based practice, and (iii) utilises a purpose-built digital platform, My Anxiety Care. The primary outcome is change in anxiety as measured by the Rating Anxiety in Dementia scale. Secondary outcomes include change in quality of life and depression, and outcomes for carers. The process evaluation will be guided by evaluation frameworks. Qualitative interviews will be conducted with a purposive sample of participants (n = 10) and carers (n = 10), to evaluate acceptability and feasibility, as well as factors influencing participation and adherence. Interviews will also be conducted with therapists (n = 18) and wider stakeholders (n = 18), to explore contextual factors and barriers/facilitators to future implementation and scalability. A cost-utility analysis will be undertaken to determine the cost-effectiveness of Tech-CBT compared to usual care. DISCUSSION: This is the first trial to evaluate a novel technology-assisted CBT intervention to reduce anxiety in people living with MCI and dementia. Other potential benefits include improved quality of life for people with cognitive impairment and their care partners, improved access to psychological treatment regardless of geographical location, and upskilling of the psychological workforce in anxiety treatment for people living with MCI and dementia. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial has been prospectively registered with ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT05528302 [September 2, 2022].

A systematic review and meta-analysis of reablement interventions for people in permanent residential aged care homes.

BACKGROUND: Most evidence for reablement comes from community-based interventions. OBJECTIVE: To determine the effect of reablement interventions provided in permanent residential aged care (PRAC) homes on residents' level of function in activities of daily living (ADL) and quality of life (QoL). DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis. SETTING: PRAC homes. SUBJECTS: Residents in PRAC. METHODS: Six databases and grey literature were searched until November 2021. Quantitative studies involving a control group or pre-post evaluation were included. Outcomes of interest were the effectiveness of the reablement intervention on overall ADL or QoL in the last available follow-up. RESULTS: Twelve studies involving 2,620 residents were included. The reablement interventions varied; the primary focus areas were organisational approaches (e.g. educating staff; n = 10) and improving physical function (e.g. increasing physical activity; n = 9). Not all studies could be pooled in the meta-analysis due to reported data and heterogeneity. There was no significant effect of reablement intervention versus usual care on ADL function (five studies, standardised mean difference (SMD): 0.17, 95% confidence interval (CI): -0.25 to 0.59, very low quality evidence). Reablement appeared more beneficial than usual care in improving QoL; however, the overall effect was not statistically significant (four studies, SMD: 0.73, 95% CI: -0.07 to 1.52; very low quality evidence). CONCLUSIONS: Few studies focus on reablement in PRAC homes and their clinical heterogeneity is considerable. There is insufficient evidence for reablement in terms of improving ADL or QoL for residents in PRAC. Tools that are more sensitive to change may be beneficial.